Is There Not An Apparent Problem To The Doctrine Of The Trinity?

[Storm Rider]

I notice posters from this forum, who believe God lives on another planet, are silent. I've had a poster here, tell me more than once that NOT believing God lives on a planet is a wrong way to think. That argument, presented to me is, Jesus has a body and ascended into heaven, where do you think he is? Floating around in space?

Of course, the whole premise is in error, from top to bottom, as God is the creator of time and space and exists outside of it!

Mormons always want me to justify what I was taught by Mormons. I don't think you know what your own church teaches, so how's that for a retort? I did in fact look for what the LDS church teaches on the scripture passages I posted. Guess what? There isn't anything that supports what you say. So your view is just as much a speculation as the views taught to me.

All you have are ad hominems, which is nothing more than a deflection.

Back to my ignore list you go. Goodbye.

 

Oh, back to the same old refrain; your memory is right and I don't know what my ever-changing church teaches.  This reminds of me of the ostrich that puts his head in the sand and constantly repeats to heself; it will be okay the cheetah will not catch me if he cannot see me. 

 

Simply because you cannot find support does not mean it is not accurate; it means you don't know where to look.  That is a towering arrogance you have going there; best of luck.  I am sure you will find solace form those that also have their head in the sand.  

 

Simple give and take with other Christians - even cult members like Mormons - is not really all that wrong.  A zealot is a thorn in the body of Christ because they cannot see past their own nose....particularly when it is firmly planted in the sand. 

 

 If you continue to make personal attacks you will be removed from the thread.

[teddyaware]

I'm on vacation in Maui presently (leave for home tomorrow) with my family and haven't been able to follow the thread the last few days (It has advanced quite a bit as far as the # of posts go). I had responded to a few of the posters questions after making my first statement in response (post #169) to Cdowis (post # 168) back on page 9.

 

The "Apparent Problem" as I see it is the Mormon misunderstanding on the nature of "substance" in the Trinitarian view (speaking for myself here not others). They share in the same "nature" or "substance" as spirit, not being the same person. This is not difficult to understand at all. How God does it and how to explain it is where the problem lies. I prefer to reason from the Scripture itself but I'm limited presently by not being able to paste here from previously typed verses from other online sources.

 

What we can understand is where one is declared to be wrong. Trinitarians most assuredly are declared to be by both Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses using pretty much the same arguments (just change the name of the founding "prophet" with some differences).

 

I believe Joseph Smith's choice of words (also as I pointed out earlier with the statements of Legrand Richards in his A Marvelous Work and a Wonder and the Jehovah's Witnesses Paradise Earth book) goes to the modalistic idea of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit as being the "same person" which is not the Trinitarian view of the nature of God in the idea of persons which is for the purpose of identity in the Godhead.

 

I would use the term nature for substance when describing the spiritual existence of God which no one I think can understand fully without actually being God (Father Son Holy Spirit). 

 

An analogy here, God in His nature as spirit (as an example) speaking out of a burning bush (a supernatural event) to Moses from a particular bush in Moses' presence. Jesus speaking from/in this case actually inhabiting the physical form (the incarnation) with the ultimate purpose to suffer death for our sake ( a spirit doesn't die, the physical does).

 

In the book of Hebrews it says that Jesus took on flesh and blood in order to suffer death which is the spirit departing the physical form per James: the body without the spirit is dead (neither one ceases to exist upon death but will be glorified/joined together at the resurrection for eternity). The Bible doesn't explain the science of it, it just states it as a future fact.

 

The idea of "substance" goes to the distinction between physical substance- flesh blood, bone as contrasted with the spirit. In death the spirit returns to God and the body is left behind which eventually decomposes (unless preserved as Lenin is).

 

On Resurrection Day we will have glorified bodies of flesh and bone as in Jesus' resurrection in which John says we will be like him for we shall see him as he is. Jesus as spirit is God. The physical form He resided in is not deity anymore than a loaf of bread that we eat makes us a loaf of bread.

 

Jesus as spirit is God (not the Father or Holy Spirit) prior to the taking on of an additional nature in the incarnation in which the relationship has never changed but those of faith have. In the Godhead they relate to each other in a way that we will be able to relate to in the same way by the promise of faith which doesn't necessarily make us Deity. What was lost in the sense of Adam relating to God before the fall will be restored. This will go on forever. No need for the future as defined in Mormonism as eternal progression.

 

Is the resurrected body that Jesus resides in now holy and divine? Also, if the pre-resurrection body Jesus resided in was not divine, how is it that His blood is called precious and why is that precious blood able to redeem mankind from sin and death? Was Jesus' earthly body divine or was it no more sacred, significant and important than a loaf of bread? And if His pre-resurrection body was no more important than a loaf of bread, why was he able to lay that body and blood down as an infinite and eternal sacrifice? And what do you make of this:

16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? (1 Cor 10)

Edited May 18, 2014 by teddyaware

[mfbukowski]

Saemo is one of those contributors some of know so well on the Catholic board. She is great on pontification on what she "knows", but the reality is she knows very little about beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ.  I reject her methods and her agenda.  

 

I have had a long relationship with Catholics and find a great fellowship with them. Our similarities are far greater than that which separates us and that is what I strive to emphasize in my conversations. What I reject in Saemo is that she consistently distorts our beliefs; when called on it she evades and throws accusations of the strawman and ad hominem that I hear so often from critics. 

 

Give me Rory, give me Misere, give me a host of Catholics that desire commonality without forfeiting their fervent beliefs and the body of Christ is edified. Those that I find at the CB would just as soon burn me at the stake as to dare to acknowledge that we worship the same Jesus they do and are saved by his blood just as they are. 

Agreed.

[saemo]

My original post was not an attack but what I believe to be cogent defense of what I know to be true. You said that God exists outside of time and space -- hence, I presume, the supposed quaintness and silliness of believing God and saved beings can dwell on exalted planets. But in my defense of the LDS religion I clearly demonstrated that God not only creates planets that exist in time and space, but that He also chose to be born on one of them, grow up from infancy on one of them, mature on one of them, suffer and die on one of them, rise from the dead on one of them, and then spend 40 days tarrying with and teaching His chosen Apostles right here on planet earth. Meanwhile the idea that God lives on a planet is supposed to be the ultimate in unsophisticated ignorance and folly. Yet the Bible clearly sets forth the reality of God dwelling on the new planet earth with His resurrected and exalted children...

1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea (but still a planet).

2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven (to the new earth), prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men (on the new earth), and he will dwell with them (on the new earth) , and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them (on the new earth), and be their God (on the new earth). (Revelation 21)

 

 

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said your beliefs are quaint, silly, ignorance or folly.

 

I explained briefly the doctrine of the Incarnation, which covers your point of God becoming Man.

 

Yes, I believe the earth will become heaven. I do not believe we become gods, as LDS believe, so no problem. We remain created beings, living on a created world.

Edited May 19, 2014 by saemo

[teddyaware]

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said your beliefs are quaint, silly, ignorance or folly.

 

I explained briefly the doctrine of the Incarnation, which covers your point of God becoming Man.

 

Yes, I believe the earth will become heaven. I do not believe we become gods, as LDS believe, so no problem. We remain created beings, living on a created world.

Excellent! So we're not so far apart after all...

[Vance]

Same for you.

The difference is, I don't go about telling you what you believe.

[Vance]

It is a matter of logic. God is omniscient and omnipresent.

So, God is IN HELL! Got it. Edited May 19, 2014 by Vance

[Vance]

Logically, if God exists in time and space he is neither omnipresent or omniscient.

That is not logical at all, it is only a presumption.

Edited to add,

Here Christ, existing in time and space, declares His (newly acquired) omnipotence.

Matt 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

Edited May 19, 2014 by Vance

[3DOP]

 

Is the resurrected body that Jesus resides in now holy and divine? Also, if the pre-resurrection body Jesus resided in was not divine, how is it that His blood is called precious and why is that precious blood able to redeem mankind from sin and death? Was Jesus' earthly body divine or was it no more sacred, significant and important than a loaf of bread? And if His pre-resurrection body was no more important than a loaf of bread, why was he able to lay that body and blood down as an infinite and eternal sacrifice? And what do you make of this:

16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? (1 Cor 10)

 

Teddy Hi.

 

If I may...

 

Catholics actually refer to Jesus' Sacred Humanity. Whether it be in the womb of His Blessed Mother, or while He resides in Heaven, (which might be a planet for all I know), The Body of Jesus Christ is human and sacred. It is sacred because it is united to the Second Person of the Godhead. So we do not hold that His body is divine either. It isn't a question of being either divine, or no more important than a loaf of bread. The significance of His humanity as we see it, is that to redeem mankind, He chose to become one of us. 

 

Like Lutherans, Catholics make a distinction between His Human and Divine Natures. I do not know if Lutherans say that we receive Him Body and Blood, Soul, AND Divinity in the Holy Eucharist. But perhaps a reflection on that formula will help an outsider see how Catholics continue the distinction even in regards to the Holy Eucharist. 

[saemo]

Excellent! So we're not so far apart after all...

 

Well, you're like a bouncing ball. Once in while we meet at the moment you touch the pavement. Other times you're bouncing high in the air, far apart. 

Edited May 20, 2014 by saemo

[coolrok7]

To answer Storm Rider and teddy: Jesus' Deity in the context of the Trinity expressed in the Nicene Creed being critiqued here (unjustifiably so as I've observed) as identified in Scripture needs to be explained properly but often is not.

 

The basic problem lies in the fact that the view is often accused of being modalistic; Father/Son/Holy Spirit being the "same person" (by Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses in the examples I used), not for the view it actually is (whether one agrees with it or not).

 

Jesus identified with us as humans in the flesh, not the angels, of which is stated in Hebrews 1&2 in order to suffer death, the perfect for the imperfect.

 

I maintain as a Christian, of the Missouri Synod Lutheran tribe that the Deity of Jesus is in essence directly attributable to the spiritual realm of God only, not the angelic beings also created but not in the flesh. The body of Jesus from the Virgin Mary, supernaturally influenced by the Holy Spirit without any male activity involved, was made holy with His presence in the flesh.

 

The point I was making in contrasting the eating of a loaf of bread in the physical realm doesn't make us a loaf of bread. Likewise partaking of the Divine nature in, with, and under the unleavened wafer (as a Lutheran Christian we believe in the real presence of Jesus Christ in the elements eaten) as well as the wine (drank) in the Sacrament of Communion doesn't make us Deity in which we are receiving the benefits of what they are imparting to us.

 

Jesus' present physical form does not have the limitations as ours do now which will become like His in the resurrection. Because of the incarnation He didn't inherit the sinful nature (as we all do) in that the physical form from the Virgin Mary made His temptation a reality in which in His case never gave into it as we do because it is in our nature to sin which is why His sacrifice was efficacious in our salvation.

 

Heaven will probably be a recreated earth in which we will live out God's original intention for being place in the Garden "in the beginning". Whatever that is Paul was allowed to see and was forbidden to speak about. He said its not anything we could imagine which to me means it cannot be comprehended this side of receiving a glorified form. Whatever it is bring it on Lord Jesus, we're all awaiting the promise!

[Storm Rider]

To answer Storm Rider and teddy: Jesus' Deity in the context of the Trinity expressed in the Nicene Creed being critiqued here (unjustifiably so as I've observed) as identified in Scripture needs to be explained properly but often is not.

 

The basic problem lies in the fact that the view is often accused of being modalistic; Father/Son/Holy Spirit being the "same person" (by Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses in the examples I used), not for the view it actually is (whether one agrees with it or not).

 

Jesus identified with us as humans in the flesh, not the angels, of which is stated in Hebrews 1&2 in order to suffer death, the perfect for the imperfect.

 

I maintain as a Christian, of the Missouri Synod Lutheran tribe that the Deity of Jesus is in essence directly attributable to the spiritual realm of God only, not the angelic beings also created but not in the flesh. The body of Jesus from the Virgin Mary, supernaturally influenced by the Holy Spirit without any male activity involved, was made holy with His presence in the flesh.

 

The point I was making in contrasting the eating of a loaf of bread in the physical realm doesn't make us a loaf of bread. Likewise partaking of the Divine nature in, with, and under the unleavened wafer (as a Lutheran Christian we believe in the real presence of Jesus Christ in the elements eaten) as well as the wine (drank) in the Sacrament of Communion doesn't make us Deity in which we are receiving the benefits of what they are imparting to us.

 

Jesus' present physical form does not have the limitations as ours do now which will become like His in the resurrection. Because of the incarnation He didn't inherit the sinful nature (as we all do) in that the physical form from the Virgin Mary made His temptation a reality in which in His case never gave into it as we do because it is in our nature to sin which is why His sacrifice was efficacious in our salvation.

 

Heaven will probably be a recreated earth in which we will live out God's original intention for being place in the Garden "in the beginning". Whatever that is Paul was allowed to see and was forbidden to speak about. He said its not anything we could imagine which to me means it cannot be comprehended this side of receiving a glorified form. Whatever it is bring it on Lord Jesus, we're all awaiting the promise!

 

Hello Cool,

 

I think the disconnect for the saints with your statement may be focused on our belief that God in his infinite mercy and grace promises to make us like him through the atonement of Jesus Christ. We firmly understand that we are not god(s), but we also place our faith that when Jesus repeated the statement from Psalms (Jesus stated it as a question rather than a declaration) that "ye are gods".  When Paul said that we would be joint-heirs with Jesus and that we would be glorified with him, we believe that.  

 

I recognize that many critics of exaltation and the corresponding teachings of Theosis and Deification state that we cannot be like God. We do not place a limit on what God can do, which is in effect what this line of thinking infers; that somehow God cannot make us like him.  We do not know how and we can only stand in complete humility and amazement that he would deign to so overwhelmingly bless his children in such a manner, but we do accept what we interpret to be Bible based teachings.

 

Cool, here is what I believe:  doctrine does not save us. In fact, correct doctrine or false doctrine has no ability to either save or condemn any child of God.  The blood of Christ saves us and he bled for each of us regardless of race, creed, or religion.  Knowing truths and living those truths allows us to strengthen our relationship with God.  All truth regardless of where it is found comes from God for he is the only source of truth.  

[Vance]

Jesus identified with us as humans in the flesh, not the angels, . . .

We have been over this before. Angels are humans and humans are angels.

John the Baptist was an ANGEL.

Edited May 21, 2014 by Vance

[3DOP]

We have been over this before. Angels are humans and humans are angels.

John the Baptist was an ANGEL.

 

It didn't seem like Coolrok was angling for a debate about the beliefs of Mormons about angels. But it raised a significant point about how a non-Trinitarian might better understand Trinitarians. He went so far as to say that he was only speaking as a "Christian, of the Missouri Synod Lutheran tribe". Like Lutherans, Catholics also draw a distinction between men and angels. Speaking only as a Catholic, I would say that we can agree with Mormons that angels often appear as men, and that the word "angel" comes from a Greek word meaning messenger. In this respect, we may expect that men may occasionally perform the function of angels and correctly be identified as such. Not surprisingly I am sure, Catholics would also look to the first chapters of Hebrews as the most definitive biblical explanation for how to understand the relations and differences between angels and men.

[mfbukowski]

It didn't seem like Coolrok was angling for a debate about the beliefs of Mormons about angels. But it raised a significant point about how a non-Trinitarian might better understand Trinitarians. He went so far as to say that he was only speaking as a "Christian, of the Missouri Synod Lutheran tribe". Like Lutherans, Catholics also draw a distinction between men and angels. Speaking only as a Catholic, I would say that we can agree with Mormons that angels often appear as men, and that the word "angel" comes from a Greek word meaning messenger. In this respect, we may expect that men may occasionally perform the function of angels and correctly be identified as such. Not surprisingly I am sure, Catholics would also look to the first chapters of Hebrews as the most definitive biblical explanation for how to understand the relations and differences between angels and men.

We see the distinction as one of roles and not ontology.

For us, any spirit can be a "ministering spirit" while he is ministering.

[teddyaware]

It didn't seem like Coolrok was angling for a debate about the beliefs of Mormons about angels. But it raised a significant point about how a non-Trinitarian might better understand Trinitarians. He went so far as to say that he was only speaking as a "Christian, of the Missouri Synod Lutheran tribe". Like Lutherans, Catholics also draw a distinction between men and angels. Speaking only as a Catholic, I would say that we can agree with Mormons that angels often appear as men, and that the word "angel" comes from a Greek word meaning messenger. In this respect, we may expect that men may occasionally perform the function of angels and correctly be identified as such. Not surprisingly I am sure, Catholics would also look to the first chapters of Hebrews as the most definitive biblical explanation for how to understand the relations and differences between angels and men.

If I may, two scriptural references that strongly support the LDS belief angels are men redeemed by the blood of Christ is found in in the Book of Revelation. The first reference is found in Revelation 19:

10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. (Rev 19)

 

In the above verse we see a ministering angel forbidding John to worship him because he is not God, but was in reality only a fellow servant of John's. The fact that the angel says he is a "fellowservant" of John is enough to strongly suggest he (the angel) was at one time a prophet of God who lived upon the earth. But when the angel goes on to say he is numbered among John's brethren who obtained the testimony of Jesus, and that the testimony of Jesus is the very spirit that empowered the Prophets of old to prophesy of Christ many years before his coming, it becomes even more likely that John's angelic guide was a fellow human who needed the redemptive power of Christ in order to dwell, as he did, in heaven with God. But then there's even more...

6 And he (the angel) said unto me, These sayings are faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be done.

7 Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book.

8 And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things.

9 Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God. (Revelation 22)

 

John continues to be so deeply impressed by the power, might and holiness of the heavenly ministrant that he again falls down at the feet of the angel to worship him. But the angel again forbids him, this time saying that he is "of thy brethren the prophets." It's becomes quite clear, then, that this angel was once a fellow prophet who at one time dwelt on earth. Then, to help put any remaining doubt to rest, the angel says he is "of them which keep the sayings of this book (the Book of Revelation)." By declaring this fact, the angel is professing to be a Christian because the entire revelation of St. John is primarily written to and for the fallen race of humans who need the blood of Christ in order to be redeemed from the fall and enter the kingdom of heaven. So to the Latter-day saints it's clear that this angel was once a mortal a man (like Moses or Elijah) who washed his robes in the blood of the Lamb that they might be made pure and white. In other words, the angel "kept the words" of the Book of Revelation which command all to come unto Christ.     

14 And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. (Rev 7)

 

Edited May 21, 2014 by teddyaware

[3DOP]

Thank you for the clarification teddyaware. I like the way you took notice of angels as "ministering spirits" (Hebrews). Taken apart from Catholic Tradition, that seems like a plausible understanding of the nature of the angel in the Book of Revelation to me.  

Edited May 22, 2014 by 3DOP

[teddyaware]

Thank you for the clarification teddyaware. I like the way you took notice of angels as "ministering spirits" (Hebrews). Taken apart from Catholic Tradition, that seems like a plausible understanding of the nature of the angel in the Book of Revelation to me.  

 

I hope you understand that it was never my intent to challenge your interpretation of the Scriptures. I will say it again and again. The Scriptures alone are never adequate to resolve doctrinal controversy.

In all of your posts, you have proven to be too kind and respectful for me to consider you to be anything but kind and respectful. And might I add you're possessed of a keen mind as well. So never fear that I would view you as anything otherwise. In reality, I'm the one who sometimes comes on too strong and so I apologize ahead of time for intensity that might be viewed as overbearance.

All the best to a gentlemen,

Ted

Edited May 21, 2014 by teddyaware

[coolrok7]

Vance the distinction to be made in the "Sons of God" in Genesis and elsewhere are their origin. Those of the heavenly realm and those of the earthly realm. Same job as far as delivering God's messages but not the same in their origin except both are from God for His intended purposes (though we or an angel from heaven: Paul).

 

An Old Testament primary and only example I can think of at the moment would be Samuel who died and was allowed (which I believe is a far cry from being the norm) to deliver a message to King Saul for an immediate punishment of death the very next day for his role in seeking a medium which is absolutely forbidden by God (Deuteronomy 13).

 

The medium in the story was a consulter of "familiar spirits" and was surprised when Samuel actually showed up. I don't see where one can get from the context of Revelation cited would be a man of the earth but a ministering spirit from heaven (Hebrews 1:14), not of an earthly source.

[teddyaware]

Vance the distinction to be made in the "Sons of God" in Genesis and elsewhere are their origin. Those of the heavenly realm and those of the earthly realm. Same job as far as delivering God's messages but not the same in their origin except both are from God for His intended purposes (though we or an angel from heaven: Paul).

 

An Old Testament primary and only example I can think of at the moment would be Samuel who died and was allowed (which I believe is a far cry from being the norm) to deliver a message to King Saul for an immediate punishment of death the very next day for his role in seeking a medium which is absolutely forbidden by God (Deuteronomy 13).

 

The medium in the story was a consulter of "familiar spirits" and was surprised when Samuel actually showed up. I don't see where one can get from the context of Revelation cited would be a man of the earth but a ministering spirit from heaven (Hebrews 1:14), not of an earthly source.

You may not be aware of the fact that we Latter-day Saints believe in the doctrine of the pre-existence of the human spirit. In other words, we believe that all men and women who have lived, are living and will yet live upon the face of earth first lived in heaven as the spirit sons and daughters of God the Father. When the time is right for each of those pre-existent spirits, they are sent to this earth to gain experience in the mortal state where they learn how to put off the natural man and be reborn through the Spirit in the likeness of Christ. Therefore, we believe that those heavenly beings who are thought by other Christian denominations to be angels and not men, are in fact actually men in their spiritual state prior to being born on earth. So what many refer to as angels, the Latter-day Saints refer to as the pre-existent spirit sons and daughters of God who are at times called angels.

4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?

6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;

7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? (Job 38)

 

Many non-LDS Christians would say that the sons of God who shouted for joy before the foundation of the world in verse 7 are angels, while that is true, the Latter-day Saints believe they are also the literal spirit sons of God who are destined to one day live upon the earth in tabernacles of flesh.

Edited May 22, 2014 by teddyaware

[coolrok7]

I'm well aware of the teaching which I don't accept as it is not a Biblical teaching in my perspective.

[teddyaware]

I'm well aware of the teaching which I don't accept as it is not a Biblical teaching in my perspective.

To me it is a most glorious doctrine to believe that our spirits pre-existed the creation of our earthly bodies, just as Christ's Spirit pre-existed the creation of His body. To know that I am not figuratively but literally a son of God is a most exalting and ennobling principle. It also helps the concept of joint heirship with Christ make more sense in light of the fact that we are the actual spirit sons and daughters of God.

When it comes to human suffering, the doctrine of the pre-existence takes the burden off of God and puts it squarely on our shoulders. The Latter-day saints believe before we are born on earth we are thoroughly apprised as to all the potential dangers, risks, sicknesses, sorrows and possible injustices relative to life on earth that might befall us, and after being made well aware of all that could happen to us in mortality we are given the choice to volunteer to come here of our own free will and choice. This answers one of the greatest and most difficult philosophical questions of all time: Why are the members of the human race so often caused to suffer so horribly without any say in the matter?

There are other reasons why I dearly love the concept of an antemortal human existence, but I'm very tired and it's off to bed...

Edited May 22, 2014 by teddyaware

[Vance]

I'm well aware of the teaching which I don't accept as it is not a Biblical teaching in my perspective.

Pray tell, how could the "children" be "partakers of flesh and blood" if they did exist prior to their taking part in "flesh and blood"?

Heb 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

How could Jesus, "in all things" "be made like unto his brethren" if his brethren did not have a pre-mortal existence like Jesus?

Heb 2:17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

Edited May 27, 2014 by Vance

[cdowis]

Vance the distinction to be made in the "Sons of God" in Genesis and elsewhere are their origin. Those of the heavenly realm and those of the earthly realm.

 

Yes, this is how the theologians interpret this phrase.  We are grateful to the Lord for giving us living prophets to tell us about the pre-mortal life and our role in the Plan of Salvation, which is beyond the ken of the wisdom of man.

[Gervin]

When it comes to human suffering, the doctrine of the pre-existence takes the burden off of God and puts it squarely on our shoulders. The Latter-day saints believe before we are born on earth we are thoroughly apprised as to all the potential dangers, risks, sicknesses, sorrows and possible injustices relative to life on earth that might befall us, and after being made well aware of all that could happen to us in mortality we are given the choice to volunteer to come here of our own free will and choice. This answers one of the greatest and most difficult philosophical questions of all time: Why are the members of the human race so often caused to suffer so horribly without any say in the matter?

I've never heard this before. Does lds.org or some other written material expand on this (doctrine)?

 

I'm also curious about the reaction to this teaching in developing countries where human suffering and misery are prevalent; "Why the complaining? You chose to go through this."